Glasgow Chronology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The New Chronology is a proposed revision of the chronology of ancient Egypt set forth by David Rohl. It was first formulated between the years 1978 and 1982 by a working group following the Glasgow Conference of SIS. This chronology placed the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt some five hundred years later than the conventional chronology of Egypt. Peter James, David Rohl, and their co-workers abandoned this chronology in 1982, forming their own chronologies. Rohl's, which embraces the name "New Chronology" makes Ramesses II into the Shishak of the Bible, while James equates Ramesses III with Shishak.

[edit] Theories

[edit] Egypt

Rohl's published works, A Test of Time and Legend, set forth his theories for dating Egyptian kings of the 19th through 25th Dynasties, which would require a major revision of the conventional chronology of ancient Egypt, and less radical revisions of the chronologies of Israel and Mesopotamia. Rohl asserts that these would allow scholars to identify many of the main characters in the Old Testament with people whose names appear in archeological finds.

One of Rohl's methods includes the use of archaeo-astronomy, which he uses to fix the date of a solar eclipse which happened during the reign of Amenhotep IV and was observed in the town of Ugarit. He used computers to calculate the exact time; the only possible time where such eclipse could be visible in Ugarit during the whole second millennium BC was 9 May 1012 BC. According to conventional chronology, Ugarit was already destroyed in the 12th century BC and Amenothep IV (Akhenaton) 1353–1334 BC.

Rohl's redating is based on criticism of three of the four arguments which he considers are the foundations of the conventional Egyptian chronology:

• He claims that the identification of "Shishaq ['Shishak'], King of Egypt" (1 Kings 14:25f; 2 Chronicles 12:2–9), first proposed by Jean-François Champollion, is based on incorrect conclusions. Rohl argues instead that Shishaq should be identified with Ramesses II, which would move the date of Ramesses' reign forward some 300 years. (See the articles on Shoshenq I and Shishaq.)

• He claims that the record in the Ebers papyrus of the rising of Sirius in the ninth regnal year of Amenhotep I, which supposedly fixes the year to either 1542 BC or 1517 BC, is misread, and instead should be understood as evidence for a reform in the Egyptian Calendar.

• Papyrus Leiden I.350, which dates to the 52nd year of Ramesses II, records lunar observations that place that year of Ramesses' reign in one of 1278, 1253, 1228 or 1203 BC. Having questioned the value of the Ebers Papyrus, Rohl argues that since these lunar observations are accurate every twenty-five years, they could also indicate dates 300 years later.

Rohl bases his revised chronology (the New Chronology) on his interpretation of numerous archeological finds and genealogical records of several individuals. For example:

• Rohl notes a gap in the stelae associated with the Apis vaults at Saqqara for the 21st and 22nd dynasties of Egypt, which combined with the placement of coffins at the Royal Cache (TT 320) of coffins, shows these two dynasties were contemporary. He also offers an interpretation of the relationship of the tombs of Osorkon I and Psusennes I at Tanis that supports his theory.

• Rohl offers inscriptions that list three non-royal genealogies, which—when one equates one generation to an average of 20 years—proves Ramesses II flourished at the later time Rohl believes.

The New Chronology was also the prime concern of ISIS. Building upon the Revised Chronology of Immanuel Velikovsky and the Glasgow Chronology presented at the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies' 1978 'Ages in Chaos' conference, the New Chronology puts the dates on the Traditional Chronologies Based upon Egypt out by up to 300 years at points prior to the universally accepted fixed date of 664 BC for the sacking of Thebes by Ashurbanipal.

[edit] Opposition

While the vast majority of Egyptologists reject Rohl's theories, Rohl's most vocal critic has been Professor Kenneth Kitchen, formerly of Liverpool University. One of Kitchen's major objections to Rohls' arguments concerns his alleged omission of evidence that conflicts with Rohl's theories. Kitchen has pointed out that the genealogies Rohl references to date Ramesses II omit one or more names known from other inscriptions. Similarly, Egyptologists have pointed out that no other known king of Egypt fits the identification as well as Shoshenq I. Redating the floruit of Ramesses II three centuries later would not only reposition the date of the Battle of Qadesh and complicate the chronology of Hittite history, it would require a less severe revision of the chronology of Assyrian history prior to 664 BC.